Winquist View of the Femoral Neck: Ideal Visualization of Femoral Neck Fixation.

Background: Despite the increased frequency of cephalomedullary fixation for unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures, failure with screw cut-out and varus collapse remains a significant failure mode. Proper positioning of implants into the femoral neck and head directly influences the stability of fracture fixation. Visualization of the femoral neck and head can be challenging and failure to do so may lead to poor results; Obstacles include patient positioning, body habitus, and implant application tools. We present the "Winquist View," an oblique fluoroscopic projection that shows the femoral neck in profile, aligns the implant and cephalic component, and assists in implant placement. Methods: With the patient in the lateral position, the legs are scissored when possible. Following standard reduction techniques, the Winquist view is used to check reduction prior to surgical draping. Intraoperatively, we rely on a perfect image to place implants in the ideal portion of the femoral neck, with a trajectory that achieves the center-center or center-low position of the femoral neck. This is achieved by incorporating the anterior-posterior, lateral, and Winquist view. Results: We present 3 patients who underwent fixation with a cephalomedullary nail for intertrochanteric hip fractures. The Winquist view facilitated excellent visualization and positioning in all cases. All postoperative courses were uneventful, without failures or complications. Conclusion: While standard intraoperative imaging may be adequate in many cases, the Winquist view facilitates optimal implant positioning and fracture reduction. With lateral imaging, implant insertion guides may obscure visualization of the femoral neck during which Winquist view is the most helpful. Level of Evidence: V.

Building a sustainable Mil-Civ partnership to ensure a ready medical force: A single partnership site's experience.

ABSTRACT: One of the challenges in military medicine is ensuring that the medical force deployed to the theater of combat operations is prepared to perform life, limb, and eyesight saving care at a level of care comparable to our top civilian Level I trauma centers. There is increasingly more evidence demonstrating that the majority of military physicians are not exposed to trauma or combat casualty care-relevant surgical cases on a consistent basis in their daily practice at their garrison military treatment facility (MTF). To prevent this widening skills and experience gap from become more of a reality, the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act called for the expansion of military and civilian (Mil-Civ) medical partnerships, working toward embedding military medical providers and surgical teams in busy civilian trauma centers. Vanderbilt University Medical Center is one of the busiest trauma centers in the country and being in close proximity to the local MTF at Fort Campbell, KY, it is primed to become one of the premier Mil-Civ partnerships. Creating a strategy that builds the partnership in a calculated and stepwise fashion through multiple avenues with centralized leadership has resulted in the early success of the program. However, Vanderbilt University Medical Center is not immune to challenges similar to those at other Mil-Civ partnerships, but only by sharing best practices can we continue to make progress.

The Orthopaedic Trauma Service and COVID-19: Practice Considerations to Optimize Outcomes and Limit Exposure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges to healthcare systems, including the cancellation and then staged resumption of elective procedures. The orthopaedic trauma community has continued to provide care to patients with acute musculoskeletal injuries that cannot be delayed in all scenarios. This article summarizes and provides relevant information (orthopaedic trauma service, outpatient fracture clinic, inpatient surgery) to the practicing orthopaedic traumatologist on maximizing outcomes while limiting exposure during the pandemic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Confronting the Opioid Crisis: Practical Pain Management and Strategies: AOA 2018 Critical Issues Symposium.

The United States is in the midst of an opioid crisis. Clinicians have been part of the problem because of overprescribing of narcotics for perioperative pain management. Clinicians need to understand the pathophysiology and science of addiction to improve perioperative management of pain for their patients. Multiple modalities for pain management exist that decrease the use of narcotics. Physical strategies, cognitive strategies, and multimodal medication can all provide improved pain relief and decrease the use of narcotics. National medical societies are developing clinical practice guidelines for pain management that incorporate multimodal strategies and multimodal medication. Changes to policy that improve provider education, access to naloxone, and treatment for addiction can decrease narcotic misuse and the risk of addiction.

Providing Value in Fracture Care: Academic Versus Private Setting.

Although the science of fracture care transcends the setting, the delivery of value may be dramatically different depending on the practice situation. Compared to our colleagues specializing in total joint arthroplasty, trauma surgeons have a greater challenge demonstrating increased quality relative to the cost of care. Although most orthopedic surgeons are in private practice, their individual practice settings vary significantly. Generally speaking, private groups with dynamic and forward-thinking leadership can seize opportunity to increase value in fracture care, and nimble action can improve value for the patient and the practice. Academic medical centers have synergies to enhance integrated medical care, and the tripartite mission of education, research and patient care lend themselves to increasing value. In either setting, leadership in orthopedic surgery can enhance value in fracture care.

Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture.

Hemiarthroplasty is a common treatment for femoral neck fractures in the elderly population. The main complications are periprosthetic dislocation and infection, which potentially impact morbidity and quality of life and may contribute to mortality. This procedure can be technically demanding, and adequate closure of the capsule and soft tissue cannot be emphasized enough. One advantage of a bipolar prosthesis is that it can be easily converted to a total hip arthroplasty without replacing the femoral component and with approximately the same complication rates as a revision total hip arthroplasty. Cement should be used when the patient is osteoporotic or has a Dorr type-C canal because there is a significant reduction in risk of fracture. The addition of a collared stem is helpful if there is a crack in the calcar extending from the fracture. The procedure is as follows. (1) The patient is placed in the lateral decubitus position. (2) The surgical site is prepared and draped to above the iliac crest and mid-sacrum. (3) A posterior approach is utilized. (4) The hip is dislocated. (5) A cut is made at the femoral neck. (6) The implant is templated with the femoral head. (7) The femur is broached. (8) The trial implant is placed. (9) The femur is cemented. (10) Trial implants are removed and cement is placed. (11) The final stem implant is placed in 5° to 10° of anteversion. (12) The final head and neck implants are trialed and then placed. (13) Implant position and range of motion are tested. (14) The surgical wound is irrigated. (15) Short external rotators are repaired. The posterior approach, which is often used, is known for increased rates of dislocation. The rate of dislocation can be minimized with repair of the posterior capsule and posterior soft tissue. Proper placement of the implants is of the utmost importance to minimize complications. Other contributing factors that lead to dislocation are implant malpositioning and patient factors.

Trauma systems in North America.

North American trauma systems are well developed yet vary widely in form across the continent. Comparatively, the Canadian trauma system is more unified, and approximately 80% of Canadians live within 1 hour of a level I or II center. In the United States, trauma centers are specifically verified by the individual states and thus there tends to be more variability across the country. Although many states use the criteria developed by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, the individual agencies are free to utilize their own verification standards. Both Canada and the United States utilize efficient prehospital care, and both countries recognize that postdischarge care is a financial challenge to the system. Population dense areas offer rapid admission to well-developed trauma centers, but injured patients in remote areas may have challenges regarding access. Trauma centers are classified according to their capabilities from level I (highest ability) to level IV. Although each trauma system has opportunities for improvement, they both provide effective access and quality care to the vast majority of injured patients.

Association Between 6-Week Postdischarge Risk Classification and 12-Month Outcomes After Orthopedic Trauma.

Importance: Numerous studies have demonstrated that long-term outcomes after orthopedic trauma are associated with psychosocial and behavioral health factors evident early in the patient's recovery. Little is known about how to identify clinically actionable subgroups within this population. Objectives: To examine whether risk and protective factors measured at 6 weeks after injury could classify individuals into risk clusters and evaluate whether these clusters explain variations in 12-month outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective observational study was conducted between July 16, 2013, and January 15, 2016, among 352 patients with severe orthopedic injuries at 6 US level I trauma centers. Statistical analysis was conducted from October 9, 2017, to July 13, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: At 6 weeks after discharge, patients completed standardized measures for 5 risk factors (pain intensity, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use) and 4 protective factors (resilience, social support, self-efficacy for return to usual activity, and self-efficacy for managing the financial demands of recovery). Latent class analysis was used to classify participants into clusters, which were evaluated against measures of function, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and self-rated health collected at 12 months. Results: Among the 352 patients (121 women and 231 men; mean [SD] age, 37.6 [12.5] years), latent class analysis identified 6 distinct patient clusters as the optimal solution. For clinical use, these clusters can be collapsed into 4 groups, sorted from low risk and high protection (best) to high risk and low protection (worst). All outcomes worsened across the 4 clinical groupings. Bayesian analysis shows that the mean Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment dysfunction scores at 12 months differed by 7.8 points (95% CI, 3.0-12.6) between the best and second groups, by 10.3 points (95% CI, 1.6-20.2) between the second and third groups, and by 18.4 points (95% CI, 7.7-28.0) between the third and worst groups. Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrates that during early recovery, patients with orthopedic trauma can be classified into risk and protective clusters that account for a substantial amount of the variance in 12-month functional and health outcomes. Early screening and classification may allow a personalized approach to postsurgical care that conserves resources and targets appropriate levels of care to more patients.

Intramedullary Nail Fixation of Tibial Shaft Fractures: Suprapatellar Approach.

Intramedullary nailing is the most popular and widely used method for treating tibial shaft fractures. Intramedullary nailing involves minimal surgical dissection, allowing preservation of blood supply by not disrupting the soft tissue around the fracture. The procedure is performed with the following steps: (1) the patient is positioned supine on the radiolucent operating table with a bump under the ipsilateral hip; (2) a 4 to 6-cm longitudinal incision is made 2 to 4 cm directly proximal to the superior pole of the patella; (3) the quadriceps tendon is sharply incised at its midline and split longitudinally; (4) a cannula device with a blunt trocar and protective sleeve is inserted into the knee joint between the articular surface of the patella and the trochlea of the distal part of the femur, after which a second pin can be inserted through the cannula device and into the distal part of the femur to stabilize the cannula and keep it from backing out; (5) a 3.2-mm guide pin is inserted and placed resting at the junction of the articular surface and the anterior cortex of the tibia at the appropriate starting point in line with the intramedullary canal; (6) the guide pin is advanced 8 to 10 cm into the proximal part of the tibia, the inner centering sleeve is removed, and the cannulated entry drill is passed over the pin through the outer protective sleeve and used to ream down to the metadiaphyseal level of the proximal part of the tibia; (7) the fracture is reduced; (8) a ball-tipped guidewire is centrally passed across the fracture down to the level of the distal tibial physeal scar; (9) incremental reaming is performed, and the appropriate-size tibial nail is inserted down the tibial canal; (10) the appropriate nail position is confirmed radiographically, and distal interlocking screws are placed with a freehand technique, after which the proximal aiming arm is attached to the insertion handle and interlocking screws are drilled, measured, and placed into the proximal part of the tibia as well; and (11) all incisions as well as the quadriceps tendon are closed. Intramedullary nail fixation is a safe and effective method for treating tibial shaft fractures, and with appropriate surgical technique good outcomes and reproducible results can be expected. This soft-tissue-sparing method of fracture fixation achieves biomechanical stabilization of the fracture using a load-sharing device that allows for earlier postoperative ambulation.

Early Comparative Outcomes of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Plate in the Fixation of Distal Femur Fractures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early clinical results of distal femur fractures treated with carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) plates compared with stainless steel (SS) lateral locking plates. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative cohort study. SETTING: ACS Level I trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two patients (11 SS, 11 CFR-PEEK) with closed distal femur fractures treated by a single surgeon over a 6-year period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Nonunion, hardware failure, reoperation, time to full weight-bearing, and time union were assessed. RESULTS: The CFR-PEEK cohort was on average older (71 vs. 57 years, P = 0.03) and more likely to have diabetes (P = 0.02). Nonunion was diagnosed in 4/11 (36%) patients in the SS group and 1/11 (9%) patients in the CFR-PEEK group (P = 0.12). Hardware failure occurred in 2 SS patients (18%) compared with none in the CFR-PEEK group (P = 0.14). Time to full weight-bearing was similar between groups, occurring at 9.9 and 12.4 weeks in the CFR-PEEK and SS groups, respectively (P = 0.23). Time to radiographic union averaged 12.4 weeks in the SS group and 18.7 weeks in the CFR-PEEK group (P = 0.26). There were 4 reoperations in the SS group and 1 in the CFR-PEEK group (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: CFR-PEEK plates show encouraging short-term results in the treatment of distal femur fractures with a comparable nonunion, reoperation, and hardware failure rates to those treated with SS plates. This data suggest that CFR-PEEK plates may be a viable alternative to SS plates in fixation of these fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Opioid Prescribing Practices by Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeons After Isolated Femur Fractures.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify opioid prescribing practices, determine the number of morphine milliequivalents (MMEs) prescribed by orthopaedic/nonorthopaedic members to narcotic naive and previously exposed patients, and provide narcotic prescribing recommendations. METHODS: Patients older than 18 years with an isolated femur fracture sustained between 2013 and 2015 were identified using the CPT code 27506. Prescribing information was obtained from the State Controlled Substance Monitoring Database. Descriptive analysis of MMEs was then performed. Outliers and patients without prescriptions from orthopaedic providers were excluded to eliminate skewing of data. Mean and standard deviations were then calculated for patients without a history of opiates prescribed within 1 year of injury and for patients with a history of opiates prescribed within 1 year before the injury. RESULTS: Forty-five percent (40/88) of patients were opiate exposed at the time of injury. Previously exposed patients received 1491 MMEs (SD, 1044; median, 1350; range, 210-5140) and nonexposed patients received 1363 MMEs (SD, 977.2; median, 1260; range, 105-4935) from orthopaedic providers (P = 0.1473). Nonorthopedists prescribed 530 MMEs (SD, 780.7; median, 140; range, 0-3515) to previously exposed patients and 175 MMEs (SD, 393; median, 140; range, 0-1890) to patients without exposure (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Patients with prior exposure are more likely to be prescribed more opiates after femoral shaft fracture treatment. We recommend a protocol of prescribing half the mean of MMEs currently prescribed by orthopedists equating to 47 (711 MMEs) pills of oxycodone 10 mg in up to 3 prescriptions.

Open treatment of ankle fracture as inpatient increases risk of complication.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fracture is one of the most common injuries treated by orthopaedic surgeons, and its incidence is only expected to rise with an aging population. It is also associated with often costly complications, yet there is little literature on risk factors, especially modifiable ones, driving these complications. The aim of this study is to reveal whether inpatient treatment after ankle fracture is associated with higher incidence of postoperative complications. As the USA moves towards a bundled payment healthcare system, it is imperative that orthopaedists maximize patient outcome and quality of care while also reducing overall costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to compare complication rates between inpatient and outpatient treatment of ankle fracture. We collected patient demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications from both groups, then compared treatments using a multinomial logistic regression model. RESULTS: We identified 7383 patients, with 2630 (36%) in the outpatient and 2630 (36%) in the inpatient group. Of these, 104 (4.0%) inpatients compared with 52 (2.0%) outpatients developed a complication (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inpatients developed major complications including deep wound infection and pulmonary embolism, as well as minor complications such as pneumonia and urinary tract infection, at significantly greater rates. As reimbursement models begin to incorporate value-based care, orthopaedic surgeons need to be aware of factors associated with increased incidence of postoperative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III retrospective comparative study.

Incidence and predictive risk factors of postoperative sepsis in orthopedic trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative sepsis is associated with high mortality and the national costs of septicemia exceed those of any other diagnosis. While numerous studies in the basic orthopedic science literature suggest that traumatic injuries facilitate the development of sepsis, it is currently unclear whether orthopedic trauma patients are at increased risk. The purpose of this study was thus to assess the incidence of sepsis and determine the risk factors that significantly predicted septicemia following orthopedic trauma surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 56,336 orthopedic trauma patients treated between 2006 and 2013 were identified in the ACS-NSQIP database. Documentation of postoperative sepsis/septic shock, demographics, surgical variables, and preoperative comorbidities was collected. Chi-squared analyses were used to assess differences in the rates of sepsis between trauma and nontrauma groups. Binary multivariable regressions identified risk factors that significantly predicted the development of postoperative septicemia in orthopedic trauma patients. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the overall rates of both sepsis and septic shock between orthopedic trauma (1.6%) and nontrauma (0.5%) patients (p < 0.001). For orthopedic trauma patients, ventilator use (OR = 15.1, p = 0.002), history of pain at rest (OR = 2.8, p = 0.036), and prior sepsis (OR = 2.6, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with septicemia. Statistically predictive, modifiable comorbidities included hypertension (OR = 2.1, p = 0.003) and the use of corticosteroids (OR = 2.1, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significantly greater incidence of postoperative sepsis in the trauma cohort. Clinicians should be aware of these predictive characteristics, may seek to counsel at-risk patients, and should consider addressing modifiable risk factors such as hypertension and corticosteroid use preoperatively. Level of evidence Level III.

Adverse cardiac events in 56,000 orthopaedic trauma patients: Does anatomic area make a difference?

PURPOSE: Postoperative cardiac events in orthopaedic trauma patients constitute severe morbidity and mortality. It is therefore increasingly important to determine patient risk factors that are predictive of postoperative myocardial infarctions and cardiac arrests. This study sought to assess if there is an association between anatomic area and cardiac complications in the orthopaedic trauma patient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2006-2013, a total of 361,402 orthopaedic patients were identified in the NSQIP database using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Of these, 56,336 (15.6%) patients were identified as orthopaedic trauma patients broken down by anatomic region: 11,905 (21.1%) upper extremity patients (UE), 29,009 (51.5%) hip/pelvis patients (HP), and 15,422 (27.4%) lower extremity patients (LE) using CPT codes. Patients were defined as having adverse cardiac events if they developed myocardial infarctions or cardiac arrests within 30days after surgery. Chi-squared analysis was used to determine if there was an association between anatomic area and rates of cardiac events. Multivariate logistical analysis was used with over 40 patient characteristics including age, gender, history of cardiac disease, and anatomic region as independent predictors to determine whether anatomic area significantly predicted the development of cardiac complications. RESULTS: There were significant differences in baseline demographics among the three groups: HP patients had the greatest average age (77.6 years) compared to 54.8 years for UE patients and 54.1 years in LE patients (p<0.001). HP patients also had the highest average ASA score (3.0) (p<0.001). There was a significant difference in adverse cardiac events based on anatomic area: 0.27% (32/11,905) UE patients developed cardiac complications compared to 2.15% (623/29,009) HP patients and 0.61% (94/15,422) LE patients. After multivariate analysis, HP patients were significantly more likely to develop cardiac complications compared to both UE patients (OR: 6.377, p=0.014) and LE patients (OR: 2.766, p=0.009). CONCLUSION: There is a significant difference in adverse cardiac events following orthopaedic trauma based on anatomic region. Hip/Pelvis surgery appeared to be a significant risk factor in developing an adverse cardiac event. Further studies should investigate why hip/pelvic patients are at a higher risk of adverse cardiac events.

Predictors of Adverse Events for Ankle Fractures: An Analysis of 6800 Patients.

Ankle fractures are one of the most common injuries seen by orthopedic surgeons. It is therefore essential to understand the risks associated with their treatment. Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program(®) database from 2006 to 2013, the patient demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day complications were collected for 5 types of ankle fractures. A bivariate analysis was used to compare the patient demographics, comorbidities, and complications across all Common Procedural Terminology codes. A multivariable logistic regression model was then used to assess the odds of minor and major postoperative complications within 30 days after open treatment. A total of 6865 patients were included in the analysis. Of these patients, 2507 (36.5%) had bimalleolar ankle fractures. The overall rate of adverse events for ankle fractures was low. Bimalleolar fractures had the greatest rate of major (2.6%, n = 64), minor (3.8%, n = 94), and total (5.7%, n = 143) complications. When controlling for individual patient characteristics, bimalleolar fractures were associated with 4.92 times the odds (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 13.5; p = .002) of developing a complication compared with those with a medial malleolar fracture. The risk factors driving postoperative complications for all ankle fractures were age >65 years, obesity, diabetes, American Society of Anesthesiologists score >2, and functional status (p < .05). Although the overall rate of adverse events for ankle fractures was low, bimalleolar fractures were associated with 5 times the odds of developing a complication compared with medial malleolar fractures. Orthopedic surgeons must be aware of the risk factors that increase the rate of ankle fracture complications to improve patients' quality of care.

Pre-operative labs: Wasted dollars or predictors of post-operative cardiac and septic events in orthopaedic trauma patients?

PURPOSE: As US healthcare expenditures continue to rise, there is significant pressure to reduce the cost of inpatient medical services. Studies have estimated that over 70% of routine labs may not yield clinical benefits while adding over $300 in costs per day for every inpatient. Although orthopaedic trauma patients tend to have longer inpatient stays and hip fractures have been associated with significant morbidity, there is a dearth of data examining pre-operative labs in predicting post-operative adverse events in these populations. The purpose of this study was to assess whether pre-operative labs significantly predict post-operative cardiac and septic complications in orthopaedic trauma and hip fracture patients. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2013, 56,336 (15.6%) orthopaedic trauma patients were identified and 27,441 patients (7.6%) were diagnosed with hip fractures. Pre-operative labs included sodium, BUN, creatinine, albumin, bilirubin, SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, white count, hematocrit, platelet count, prothrombin time, INR, and partial thromboplastin time. For each of these labs, patients were deemed to have normal or abnormal values. Patients were noted to have developed cardiac or septic complications if they sustained (1) myocardial infarction (MI), (2) cardiac arrest, or (3) septic shock within 30 days after surgery. Separate regressions incorporating over 40 patient characteristics including age, gender, pre-operative comorbidities, and labs were performed for orthopaedic trauma patients in order to determine whether pre-operative labs predicted adverse cardiac or septic outcomes. RESULTS: 749 (1.3%) orthopaedic trauma patients developed cardiac complications and 311 (0.6%) developed septic shock. Multivariate regression demonstrated that abnormal pre-operative platelet values were significantly predictive of post-operative cardiac arrest (OR: 11.107, p=0.036), and abnormal bilirubin levels were predictive (OR: 8.487, p=0.008) of the development of septic shock in trauma patients. In the hip fracture cohort, abnormal partial thromboplastin time was significantly associated with post-operative myocardial infarction (OR: 15.083, p=0.046), and abnormal bilirubin (OR: 58.674, p=0.002) significantly predicted the onset of septic shock. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate the utility of pre-operative labs in predicting perioperative cardiac and septic adverse events in orthopaedic trauma and hip fracture patients. Particular attention should be paid to haematologic/coagulation labs (platelets, PTT) and bilirubin values. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.

Thromboembolic Disease After Orthopedic Trauma.

Orthopedic trauma results in systemic physiologic changes that predispose patients to venous thromboembolism (VTE). In the absence of prophylaxis, VTE incidence may be as high as 60%. Mechanical and pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis are effective in decreasing rates of VTE. Combined mechanical and pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is more efficacious for decreasing VTE incidence than either regimen independently. If pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated, mechanical prophylaxis should be used. Patients with isolated lower extremity fractures who are ambulatory, or those with isolated upper extremity trauma, do not require pharmacologic prophylaxis in the absence of other VTE risk factors.